Ben wrote:Its my opinion that comments, whether intentionally or intentionally, provocative, comments which could be perceived as sectarian in nature, are death to a board like ours.

Agree. I've seen some boards who died for this reason. It is clear that Theravadins cannot agree with many other religions or some concepts of other buddhist schools. Even within the Theravada there are some contrarian ways of thinking. I think it would be better to discuss only the Theravadin view here on DW.

With best wishes

With best wishes

Only in a vertical view, straight down into the abyss of his own personal existence, is a man capable of apprehending the perilous insecurity of his situation; and only a man who does apprehend this is prepared to listen to the Buddha's Teaching.Nanavira Thera - Notes on Dhamma

IMHO neither religion nor religiosity can be separated from people. There is no religion or religiosity without people. Maybe like software which doesn't exist without hardware. Things aren't independet. So if someone talks about religion or religiosity someone always talks about "particular software depending on particular hardware". It's inseperable. All we can know about religion or religiosity could only be experienced by people who looked at other people who were "living or acting religious or according to any religion". According to that we only know about people with particular behaviour. The danger of intolarance to religion or religiosity means danger of intolarance to other people behaviour.

A clever person watches others, but he watches with wisdom, not with ignorance. If one watches with wisdom, one can learn much. But if one watches with ignorance, one can only find faults. (Ajahn Chah)

I think we shouln't watch too much at other people but at ourselves If somone agrees, it's ok - if not it's ok, too.

A clever person watches others, but he watches with wisdom, not with ignorance. If one watches with wisdom, one can learn much. But if one watches with ignorance, one can only find faults. (Ajahn Chah)

I think we shouln't watch too much at other people but at ourselves If someone agrees, it's ok - if not it's ok, too.

Agree.

With best wishes

With best wishes

Only in a vertical view, straight down into the abyss of his own personal existence, is a man capable of apprehending the perilous insecurity of his situation; and only a man who does apprehend this is prepared to listen to the Buddha's Teaching.Nanavira Thera - Notes on Dhamma

Notice how the whole theme is on tolerance and how anyone can get to heaven. There is not an outright all-inclusiveness, all-is-one new age to it either. It is focusing on the tolerance and positive aspects of Buddhism.

And it also mentions, "this current global age of clashing ideologies, fanatical strife and senseless violence " without bashing any particular, specific religion or religion in general.

I think this is a productive and wholesome approach. Of course there are differences between religions and of course both religion and non-religion have provided strife and violence, but this site (Just Be Good) focuses on the positive and how Buddhism differs from other philosophies, but without bashing those other philosophies. I'm not saying anyone has, just making general observations about the wholesome nature of the site I linked in this post.

Not to be picky but no violence has been done in the name on non-religion just as no violence has been done in the name of atheism since its a lack of belief, any violence that comes from the non-religious comes from another ideology they have taken up (communism, Nazism, racism etc)

Metta

He who binds to himself a joyDoes the wingèd life destroy;But he who kisses the joy as it fliesLives in eternity's sunrise.

Not to be picky but no violence has been done in the name on non-religion just as no violence has been done in the name of atheism since its a lack of belief, any violence that comes from the non-religious comes from another ideology they have taken up (communism, Nazism, racism etc)

Hi clw_uk,

True, it is not in the name of non-religion. But non-religion usually does morph into some ideology like the ones mentioned above. Except for perhaps secular humanism, rationalism and there are not too many of those around as the majority form some non-religious ideology that they may even die for (similar to religion), such as communism, socialism, extreme environmentalist activism, extreme animal rights activism, right wing conspiracy theories, etc., etc.

Extremists on all sides, with religion and those without religion. It is not non-religion that is the culprit, I agree, but rather what it sometimes morphs into.

Thank you all for your thoughtful responses to the OP. Peter, I love that direct answer. Made me smile.

Ben wrote:Until we become ariyan, we all suffer from conceit and our view is seriously polluted and distorted by our own negativities. I believe we should all be extremely vigilant, there is no limit to the variations of the manifestations of our own defilements.

Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!

Howdy clw,

Although I find many of your posts annoying, I'm glad to have you here with us. Good for the mix. But you need to realize that your manner of discussion tends to provoke disagreement with you. Finding middle ground does not appear to be a priority. That's not a bad thing. Just don't assume that others get upset. I'm not upset with you. I just think in this instance your rhetoric has been shocking. You might not fully realize how your words come across.

clw_uk wrote:You cant seem to distinquish doctrine from person.

I think I'm capable of making this distinction. In fact on a different thread I discussed this very distinction. I also am aware that throughout history there have been examples of objectifying religions and viewpoints as evil, thus separating those religions and viewpoints from the individuals who hold them. That's not really possible. There's no such thing as an object known as a "religion" that stands apart as a separate reality from the people who have adopted it. Yes, I agree it's possible to look at "religion" dispassionately and examine it in theory. But that hasn't seemed to have been happening here. Rather, some members have been making broad statements about how "religious people" tend to be, etc.

In the other thread, it appeared to me that you were calling for broad societal change and an eventual abolition of religion. To me that sounds like one step away from another Holocaust. That's just my reaction.

(Hi Pink_Trike, I'd like to respond to your excellent post separately in this thread. Give me a little time ...)

Metta

Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,But never soddens what is open;Uncover, then, what is concealed,Lest it be soddened by the rain.

pink_trike wrote:I'm third generation religion-free w/ non-religious parents, grandparents, and great grand parents. Religion never came up. I barely knew that religion existed as a young adult. Yet, I've had to deal with religion all my adult life as a gay man. Religion and religious people have been trying to legislate my life for my whole life. Religious people have reserved a place for me in some imagined hell, based on one of their religious beliefs. Religious people prevented me from marrying the person I loved, and prevents me from marrying anyone I may love in the foreseeable future. Religious people actively advocate violence against me and all gay people. Religious people have done their very best to paint gay people as evil and degenerate, as pariah. Religious people have spent many hundreds of millions of dollars over decades to organize political campaigns designed to legally codify a second class citizenship for all gay people, including me...to make it legal to fire people based on their affectional/sexual orientation, to make it illegal to even exist as gay people - that is their ultimate goal.

What a horrible injustice you have experienced. I sympathize with you and respect you, and I loathe what religion and politics and hatred have inflicted on you personally and on society in general. May you be liberated.

pink_trike wrote:Religion trains people to be irrational, and irrational beliefs and behavior arise.

Jeff, I've had a very different experience with religion and Christianity than perhaps others here. In this lifetime, Christianity and religion have been exceedingly positive, supportive influences for me. While I recognize the ugliness in politics that ostensibly is inspired by "religion," my on-the-ground experience has been with Christians who fight for social justice and equality. I can tell you for a fact that the question of homosexuality is not as black-and-white in the New Testament as conservative Christians would have us believe. There are some passages that on the surface appear to be full of hatred, but if you look at those passages closely, in context, translating from the original language, they cannot be interpreted in the way modern conservatives interpret them.

I have been in churches where ordained clergy have argued persuasively that the Christian faith demands communion and full participation with the faithful who happen to be homosexual. There are openly gay clergy. There are Christians who feel so strongly about this issue that they have allowed their churches to split over it.

Broadly speaking, I personally have seen how clergy and lay Christians have been able to apply rational criticism to their own traditions and faiths, and to change. You have to understand that in this culture, many people have a very deep kamma association with Christianity, and this may well underly their unenlightened personalities for some time, even as they grow and change. Religion -- even non-Buddhist religion -- can actually help facilitate this steady progress toward a more mature spirituality. I've seen it happen. That is why I am very skeptical about the broad dismissal of religion that has been presented here.

Granted, there is much in religion that is ignorant and hurtful. And granted, as Ben said, until we attain to the Ariya fruit, all of us will continue to be ignorant in some fundamental ways. In fact, some ignorance persists right up until full enlightenment. Yet when it comes to religions and "religious people," I refuse to accept the broad rubric of dismissal that appears to be at play in many of the discussions here lately. Moreover, I feel Buddhadhamma calls upon us to be mindful of our own ignorance in discussions such as this, and to use compassion as a guide when examining the paths that others are on.

Metta

Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,But never soddens what is open;Uncover, then, what is concealed,Lest it be soddened by the rain.

Just don't assume that others get upset. I'm not upset with you. I just think in this instance your rhetoric has been shocking. You might not fully realize how your words come across.

My ability to express certain contentious points via the written word is not that great sadly and i am sorry for any offence that i caused.

I think I'm capable of making this distinction. In fact on a different thread I discussed this very distinction. I also am aware that throughout history there have been examples of objectifying religions and viewpoints as evil, thus separating those religions and viewpoints from the individuals who hold them. That's not really possible. There's no such thing as an object known as a "religion" that stands apart as a separate reality from the people who have adopted it. Yes, I agree it's possible to look at "religion" dispassionately and examine it in theory. But that hasn't seemed to have been happening here. Rather, some members have been making broad statements about how "religious people" tend to be, etc.

I dont want to go back into discussing religion again as it seems to be doing more harm than good atm. If you would like me to clarify any points i have made about religion or any thing i have said then feel free to PM me and i will be happy to answer you . I would like to note though that i did state that im not ridiculing or attacking people but religious thought itself, the institution of religion (of any kind) itself

In the other thread, it appeared to me that you were calling for broad societal change and an eventual abolition of religion. To me that sounds like one step away from another Holocaust. That's just my reaction.

Never abolition. I dont want to force people to leave religion or suppress it via law or intimidation or ridicule. When i say "i want to see religion go" etc i envision it happening via people willfully choosing to leave religion and via religions eventual fading away into history. What I am for is the removal of the social taboo that currently exists in society of not questioning, critcising or debating religion to much or in to much detail. Religion makes massive claims about the universe, it has a strong hold over a great number of human minds on this planet and it greatly influences how those people live and what acts they take (some of them with the "finger on the button"). Any instiution (of any creed or sect) that wields such an enormous amount of power over such a great number of people needs to be heavily debated, criticised and put under scrutiny a lot more than it has done. Since religion currently occupies a space in socitiey where its almost immune from all critcisms in the public sphere, because of that social taboo, this hasnt been done and i feel this is a dangerous situation

We dont do the same for other beliefs such as political ones. When a person proclaims they are a communist then they are quite rightly pressed by others in their view, this is what i feel needs to happen with religion. Another example is if someone states that they really believe that King Henry VIII ruled japan we dont sit back and leave it just because he really believes it, instead we question and criticise it. Same goes for in any instance of biology, physics, maths or literature. If some one states they really believe something that has no proof or doesnt seem plausible in these areas then we press them on it, the only subject where we dont do this is religion and religious beliefs.

Now i dont agree with engaing in childish name calling of religion or of the religious themselves neither do i agree in attacking them for no reason. What needs to happen is more room needs to be made for more mature, rational and logical in depth debate of religious thought much like what Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens have been doing (although i will concede that Hitchens is a tiny bit harsh).

I will bring in the Osiris similie again, no one now believes in Osiris (for the most part i know some small numbers still do) and think he probably doesnt and never has existed. We know think that any religious activity that involves him is irrational, superstitious and not needed any more. This has been reached through rational and logical thought and not through hate or intolerance on anybodies part. I dont see why this cant be done with the modern religions that we have ( i realize this involves a religion that has a theistic god but its just an example)

My personal view on religion is that its supersitious redundant myth that causes more bad than good. However despite this view i am not intolerant of religion or the religious. If people want to be xtian, muslim, hindu or wiccan then thats fine with me. All im saying is that if they do profess a belief then it should be ok for others to press them in their belief in the same way one would with politics etc as long as its done in a mature and non-cruel way, which is the same that we expect from people criticising political beliefs etc

Just to conclude i dont hate religions or the religious i just think we need, even more so in the troubles of our modern times, a more in deepth and bigger critcism of religion than we have had

Metta

Last edited by clw_uk on Sun Jun 07, 2009 7:44 pm, edited 7 times in total.

He who binds to himself a joyDoes the wingèd life destroy;But he who kisses the joy as it fliesLives in eternity's sunrise.

clw_uk wrote:Just to conclude i dont hate religions or the religious i just think we need, even more so in the troubles of our modern times, a more in deepth and bigger critcism of religion than we have had

Yes, and in order to do that effectively, we must start with a reasonable understanding of those religions and religious views. If we start with some straw-man interpretation that does not reflect reality, then we'll just alienate those religious people and shut down dialogue.

Criticism must start with educating oneself about that which one is criticizing. Then criticism must proceed from a common ground of mutual respect and tolerance. Otherwise you just get heated arguments.

Metta

Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,But never soddens what is open;Uncover, then, what is concealed,Lest it be soddened by the rain.

clw_uk wrote:Just to conclude i dont hate religions or the religious i just think we need, even more so in the troubles of our modern times, a more in deepth and bigger critcism of religion than we have had

Yes, and in order to do that effectively, we must start with a reasonable understanding of those religions and religious views. If we start with some straw-man interpretation that does not reflect reality, then we'll just alienate those religious people and shut down dialogue.

Criticism must start with educating oneself about that which one is criticizing. Then criticism must proceed from a common ground of mutual respect and tolerance. Otherwise you just get heated arguments.

Metta

I do study religions in depth, i read the bible and koran a lot and i am going to move onto a deeper look into hindu scripures soon. Back to the point though there is a distinction between moderate practice and fundementalist practice i do concede that. The remakrs i made are apt to the fundamentalist interpretation/view and not to the moderate one. However as long as the religions and their holy books are considered true in some way there will always be a fundamentalist approach since these are backed by the texts themselves. The harsh remarks i made are to show what religions were in the past and still are in a literal, fundemental form which is still practiced by a large number of humans, its only fringe in some countries

Moderates are moral and kind (mostly) and dont hate homosexuals but as i said earlier the only reason why people arent still stoning people to death and persecuting homosexuals (which i do say moderates are not doing) is because of our modern, post enlightenment ethical values that allow us to return to the holy books and pick and choose those lines that we feel are moral and good and ignore the amoral ones. No one gets ethical value from Leviticus anymore despite the fact the acts in there are allowed by God

The moderate ethical values dont come from the religion and the holy books themselves, they come from the same place i get them from. As i said this then lets them (and me) look at certain lines or books and find them abhorent

N.B. im reffering to any holy book here

He who binds to himself a joyDoes the wingèd life destroy;But he who kisses the joy as it fliesLives in eternity's sunrise.

Notice how the whole theme is on tolerance and how anyone can get to heaven. There is not an outright all-inclusiveness, all-is-one new age to it either. It is focusing on the tolerance and positive aspects of Buddhism.

It's generally good. Unfortunately, they then link to one of those aweful mis-translations of the Kalama Sutta:

But, whatever, after thorough investigation and reflection, you find to agree with reason and experience, as conducive to the good and benefit of one and all and of the world at large, accept only that as true, and shape your life in accordance with it.

Jechbi wrote:I have been in churches where ordained clergy have argued persuasively that the Christian faith demands communion and full participation with the faithful who happen to be homosexual. There are openly gay clergy. There are Christians who feel so strongly about this issue that they have allowed their churches to split over it.

Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and PolynesiaMain article: Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia

Official policy remains that of the Lambeth Conference (all homosexual activity is sin). The Maori and Pasifika tikanga are committed to this. Any participation leads to immediate summary withdrawals of any Bishop's licences, tantamount to immediate Excommunication.[citation needed] The previous Archbishop of New Zealand Whakahuihui Vercoe created a stir after his consecration in 2004 when he expressed the hope that Christians would one day see a world without gays, free of sexual immorality, including homosexuality.[citation needed]

Some Pākehā clergy and parishes are accepting same-sex unions, such as St Matthews in the City and their vicar Glynn Cardy.[citation needed] The Dunedin and Auckland Dioceses are notable for other such examples, including the ordination of a non-celibate gay priest, and the blessings of same-sex relationships performed by priests in an official capacity.[20]

clw_uk wrote:Just to conclude i dont hate religions or the religious i just think we need, even more so in the troubles of our modern times, a more in deepth and bigger critcism of religion than we have had

Yes, and in order to do that effectively, we must start with a reasonable understanding of those religions and religious views. If we start with some straw-man interpretation that does not reflect reality, then we'll just alienate those religious people and shut down dialogue.

Criticism must start with educating oneself about that which one is criticizing. Then criticism must proceed from a common ground of mutual respect and tolerance. Otherwise you just get heated arguments.

Metta

This really is key, imo. Not easy though. Many people seem to take the literal beliefs of other religions as being their "truth" and then knock those views as being false. I tend to look at all spiritual belief systems as symbolic and metaphorical vehicles for deeper truths... If you take this approach then you start to notice many common themes in all the world's religion. It doesnt mean all religions are true, but in many respects they are conveying quite a few similar memes and messages.

Be kind to others, practice forgiveness and generosity, trust that things work out, there is an order to the universe, a deeper transcendent truth that lies within us, life is sacred, killing is wrong, love is the only antidote to hate, self-discipline is helpful, meditation and prayer are helpful, desires often lead to suffering, etc...

If you don't look at religions that way (as vehicles for a more "spiritual" approach to life) then one will notice the surface differences instead. Differences which do exist, but may not be as important as we think.

"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

Well over the night I recieved several mails from someone claiming to be buddhist who wrote this

The Mahaparinirvana sutra makes it as clear as can be that we should be happy to call ourselves Buddhist and to promote the Dharma as and where possible. Its truly sad that you can use Buddhist terms and have a Buddhist website and not even acknowledge our dear Shakyamuni. Are you ashamed of calling yourself a Buddhist? I will not be angry at you as the Dharma forbids it but I do consider your approach to be wrong on too many levels to count. And pls don't patronize me with this we should not even call ourselves Buddhist nonsense. I know the sutras and yes we should. We should stand up and honor the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha wherever we can. I too am a blonde blue eyed Westerner whose life was changed by the Dharma and I am so glad to let the world know about it. If you are too ashamed to even call yourself a Buddhist please don't exploit the Dharma to make yourself stand out.

All because I prefer to call myself a seeker of truth, and make no claims that I am not Buddhist.

then claims to of said I can call myself what I want

As I said if you think the word Buddhist is too western, you can use many other words to denote an Arhant in training. In the western world when you are speaking in English you are practicing Buddhism and therefore you are what anyone would call a Buddhist. Call yourself a Dharma practitioner or any other Pali word you want. But don't pretend your not a Buddhist when you know you are and everyone else knows you are. Your not an atheist, not a Muslim, not an Xtian .. you are a Buddhist. Truth is very important and Right Speech is about honesty, not deception. Tell the world the truth .. you are a Buddhist. What are you ashamed of?

don't know this person but i think it strange a complete stranger can make such a big deal over what someone chooses to call themselves then claim they said it is alright by them.

one minuet I am being blashemous the next it is ok the next I am ashamed of being buddhist, etc etc etcI sometimes wonder why I bother with the internet.

yes we can all have our moments, and there is a fun banter discussion just for the sake of it, bt people shouldn't add what isn't there or take away what isn't there.if you don't like something you have the option of ignoring itand as meditators sitting on the cussion.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

So am I, I am an equal opportunity Biggot myself don't care who you are I hate you!!!LOL

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

i have no problem with a person saying whatever they may feel about a religion or philosophy. they are not people, they are not animals, they are abstract concepts that for the most part the people who subscribe to cant even agree that they really subscribe to the same thing even though they subscribe to the same religion of philosophy. huh?

yeah anyways, if i say tom is an asshole, then im being rude, but i may be right. if i say christians are assholes, i'm generalizing, and kinda a bit ignorant. if i say christianity is full of crap, it's just an opinion and no one should get too upset about it.

สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat

jcsuperstar wrote:i have no problem with a person saying whatever they may feel about a religion or philosophy. they are not people, they are not animals, they are abstract concepts that for the most part the people who subscribe to cant even agree that they really subscribe to the same thing even though they subscribe to the same religion of philosophy. huh?

yeah anyways, if i say tom is an asshole, then im being rude, but i may be right. if i say christians are assholes, i'm generalizing, and kinda a bit ignorant. if i say christianity is full of crap, it's just an opinion and no one should get too upset about it.

and what if someone says your full of crap, is that rude or just an opinion?

it should be remembered that there are people who take insults about the group they belong to personally, if I don't agree with x, y, or z and say so in a rude manner it is still being rude, sharing information and sharing a position are not too disimilar, if I say boxers can also be called pants that is one thing, but if I say boxers are shit catchers that is another.

sorry for the swearwords and 17 four letter words.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."